It is often said "one who serves as his own lawyer has a fool for a client.". If this is true, how do you justify:

Question

a. the philosophy of ADR advocates who urge direct negotiations with potential court opponents whenever feasible, and
b. the use of small-claims courts whenever appropriate?

Answer 1

a. People are seldom concerned with the vagarities of substantive or procedural law before a business or domestic relationship breaks down. If a business, domestic or other relationship does breakdown, each party should consider that litigation actually increases total costs and this burden falls on both parties-even if measured in loss of time and goodwill. They should be, and usually will be, willing to compromise and accept a settlement that provides less than total satisfaction. Litigation, especially when prolonged, seldom satisfies even the winning party completely. Involvement in a lawsuit usually forecloses any future dealings with the opponent, thus cutting off potentially significant future profits or other satisfaction for both parties.
b. Even if ADR failed, the full specter of traditional regular litigation — with expensive legal talent representing each party — can still be avoided by bringing the dispute before a small- claims court, if the claim is within applicable dollar limits. The procedure is comparatively informal and theoretically, the parties are "on a level playing field.". Stated negatively, the parties are at an equal disadvantage (unless the opponent is an attorney either as the interested party or as the employee of the corporation).